Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?
Sign in to follow this  
Snipper

Should I become vegan (vegetarian) to save the planet?

Recommended Posts

If yes how many would also need to become vegan (vegetarian) to compensate for a dirty Chinese power plant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely there’s more to the question than the simple boolean requested...

A vegan who eats vegetables, fruits and/or proteins manufactured on the other side of the planet would surely be making less of an improvement to the situation than a lady or gent eating a small-batch locally-reared fartless cow sausage (if one was to exist)?

Also as I understand it soya is ridiculously energy intensive.

Knowing how and from where food travels is vital - but wasting less of the food we produce is critical - be it animal, grain, vegetable or lab food.

I’m trying to eat everything local, but I appreciate it’s relatively easy to do that here in south-eastern UK. For those in deserts, or remote areas this may not be an option...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing in this world is simple. 

Not trying to be negative but it is a matter of proportion. 

For me I am an omnivore. At the moment my particular favourite dish is runner beans. Do love having seasonal vegetables. Never the same bought in January. Growing one called Lady Di. It is stringless so even if quite big are not tough. They are very nice with a roast joint. Also like them on their own. 

I do ponder the idea of giving up meat is pie in the sky for most. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going straight can be bad for your own health too much of a shock,some people lose muscle and get weaker balance is sensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest I'm not sure that the answer fundamentally is to stop rearing animals for food. I think the unpalatable question that remains unasked is how many more people can the Earth sustain?

The world population has doubled in my lifetime and what all the articles on the news choose to omit is that all these folk breathe out CO2 and far and need food and water.

Medical science and overall progress mean that more people live longer  - average life expectancy has increased from 72 in 1967 when I was born to 81 now, a 12.5% improvement.

I'm not sure the underlying issue is the fact that we eat meat, grains or anything lese from nature's larder, its just that there's way more people than there used to be, and sustainability is at a critical point 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I agree with much of what has been said about food, I have actually started eating a lot less red meat recently - have been doing 2 fully vegetarian days per week, fish once, chicken once and red meat on the remaining day if I feel like it.  I can't profess to be eating local produce as I do most of my shopping at low-cost supermarkets out of necessity.  I simply cannot bring myself to go vegan, I am too much of a cheese monster and I drink a *huge* amount of tea with milk.  I am yet to find a non-dairy alternative that doesn't make tea taste like dishwater.

But as @JeffC said above, the biggest question we should probably be asking ourselves is 'Should I have children?', or if that's unpalatable then 'Should I have more than one child?'.  We urgently need to slow population growth but this issue is just too emotive and contentious to be asked in many people's eyes.

Edited by fujita5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, fujita5 said:

I agree with much of what has been said about food, I have actually started eating a lot less red meat recently - have been doing 2 fully vegetarian days per week, fish once, chicken once and red meat on the remaining day if I feel like it.  I can't profess to be eating local produce as I do most of my shopping at low-cost supermarkets out of necessity.  I simply cannot bring myself to go vegan, I am too much of a cheese monster and I drink a *huge* amount of tea with milk.  I am yet to find a non-dairy alternative that doesn't make tea taste like dishwater.

But as @JeffC said above, the biggest question we should probably be asking ourselves is 'Should I have children?', or if that's unpalatable then 'Should I have more than one child?'.  We urgently need to slow population growth but this issue is just too emotive and contentious to be asked in many people's eyes.

That is the key, but it seems politically incorrect to say so for fear of offending religious people and its a point always avoided by the people that are most vociferous about climate change on here, the fact remains that if i drove a 4 litre Ferrari but had no children but somebody else had 4 children all driving a 1.3 fiesta, their carbon footprint would be far higher than mine, you can dress everything else up any way you want but the core principle is no matter how much green technology improves and the will to do something is there, until this attitude changes then any attempt to 'save the earth' by these means will end up futile, all you will do is postpone the point at which earth becomes uninhabitable to man rather than avoid it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, feb1991blizzard said:

That is the key, but it seems politically incorrect to say so for fear of offending religious people and its a point always avoided by the people that are most vociferous about climate change on here, the fact remains that if i drove a 4 litre Ferrari but had no children but somebody else had 4 children all driving a 1.3 fiesta, their carbon footprint would be far higher than mine, you can dress everything else up any way you want but the core principle is no matter how much green technology improves and the will to do something is there, until this attitude changes then any attempt to 'save the earth' by these means will end up futile, all you will do is postpone the point at which earth becomes uninhabitable to man rather than avoid it.

MMM  I agree to a point  however  the   western  world   ( which i suppose causes most to global warming) has the lowest birthrates in the world.  Its Poor areas such as most of Africa a Asia that their is a fertality rate boom.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, feb1991blizzard said:

That is the key, but it seems politically incorrect to say so for fear of offending religious people and its a point always avoided by the people that are most vociferous about climate change on here, the fact remains that if i drove a 4 litre Ferrari but had no children but somebody else had 4 children all driving a 1.3 fiesta, their carbon footprint would be far higher than mine, you can dress everything else up any way you want but the core principle is no matter how much green technology improves and the will to do something is there, until this attitude changes then any attempt to 'save the earth' by these means will end up futile, all you will do is postpone the point at which earth becomes uninhabitable to man rather than avoid it.

indeed - many cultures used to have large numbers of children due to high infant mortality, which applies less and less as populations advance....and as said earlier, life expectancy has increased markedly. https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/ makes an interesting read

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, weirpig said:

MMM  I agree to a point  however  the   western  world   ( which i suppose causes most to global warming) has the lowest birthrates in the world.  Its Poor areas such as most of Africa a Asia that their is a fertality rate boom.  

yeah, but it doesn't matter geographically where the increased population is, exhaling CO2 will be pretty similar in Africa as it is in America. Admittedly Americans may fart more due to diet but that's debatable!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JeffC said:

yeah, but it doesn't matter geographically where the increased population is, exhaling CO2 will be pretty similar in Africa as it is in America. Admittedly Americans may fart more due to diet but that's debatable!

LOL  i was thinking more to do with  The use of Petrol guzzling vehicles  And use of Technology    as apposed to passing wind.  My point also was that seeing as the populatio0n growth  is mainly in poor countries  i really cannot see how  you could implement a cap on birth rates 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, weirpig said:

LOL  i was thinking more to do with  The use of Petrol guzzling vehicles  And use of Technology    as apposed to passing wind.  My point also was that seeing as the populatio0n growth  is mainly in poor countries  i really cannot see how  you could implement a cap on birth rates 

yeah, point taken... I know it's Monday morning and therefore an obvious statement to make...we're Doomed!!

Edited by JeffC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Putting aside the silly 'talking out of one's backside isn't PC' type of arguments, for once, and instead using some real data:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.htm

I wonder just how many Africans it'd take to produce as much CO2...as one American does?:oldgrin:

PS: I'm sure UKIP's new leader Dick Braine will have the answer!:oldgood:

Edited by Ed Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Putting aside the silly 'talking out of one's backside isn't PC' type of arguments, for once, and instead using some real data:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.htm

I wonder just how many Africans it'd take to produce as much CO2...as one American does?:oldgrin:

quite a stark reality that Pete...I refer you to my previous, we're doomed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Putting aside the silly 'talking out of one's backside isn't PC' type of arguments, for once, and instead using some real data:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.htm

I wonder just how many Africans it'd take to produce as much CO2...as one American does?:oldgrin:

😂  Maybe a cull on all americans then?.   not sure if that would raise much debate.   disclaimer.  that was obviously a joke and i dont condone the culling of anyone including americans   although maybe a implement to stop them being so bloody annoying 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe need to think of it as a futility rather than fertility issue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ed Stone said:

Putting aside the silly 'talking out of one's backside isn't PC' type of arguments, for once, and instead using some real data:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080428120658.htm

I wonder just how many Africans it'd take to produce as much CO2...as one American does?:oldgrin:

PS: I'm sure UKIP's new leader Dick Braine will have the answer!:oldgood:

Thats rubbish because should we not be trying to help Africans not have to use camels and the like and develop their economy so they can have a comparable lifestyle to ours so inevitably once they do.........    Plus also the middle East reproduce as well and there is large economies in that part of the world that don't whine on about climate change and drive cars similar to ours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, feb1991blizzard said:

Thats rubbish because should we not be trying to help Africans not have to use camels and the like and develop their economy so they can have a comparable lifestyle to ours so inevitably once they do.........    Plus also the middle East reproduce as well and there is large economies in that part of the world that don't whine on about climate change and drive cars similar to ours.

How odd? I ask a question and provide the data on which it's based, and you reply with 'That's rubbish...' Are you questioning the data or what: Creating a straw man just so you can shoot it down?

If you want to question the veracity of said data, that's fine: just show us your alternative...That's what freedom-of-speech ought to be about. Is it not?

IMO, simply stating that something 'isn't PC' doesn't make it right...:oldgrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another load of posts lazily assuming overpopulation is the only problem. 50% of the worlds CO2 emissions come from the richest 10%... and 10% of the worlds CO2 comes from the poorest 50%.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-of-global-carbon-emissions-says-oxfam

Lets face it, the rich need to change their lifestyles, that would make the biggest differences to global CO2 emissions but that seems to be overlooked by the right wing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, JeffC said:

To be honest I'm not sure that the answer fundamentally is to stop rearing animals for food. I think the unpalatable question that remains unasked is how many more people can the Earth sustain?

The world population has doubled in my lifetime and what all the articles on the news choose to omit is that all these folk breathe out CO2 and far and need food and water.

Medical science and overall progress mean that more people live longer  - average life expectancy has increased from 72 in 1967 when I was born to 81 now, a 12.5% improvement.

I'm not sure the underlying issue is the fact that we eat meat, grains or anything lese from nature's larder, its just that there's way more people than there used to be, and sustainability is at a critical point 

Think over population is the most important consideration for this world. 

There are just too many of us. 

Really too many selfish people having too many children. If you breed like rabbits who decides if there should be a cull?

Can’t imagine there are many out there who could bite the bullet to do anything about it .  

Why are we keeping people alive when they have no quality of life and are a complete burden?  To see my 103 mother suffering with a body that just keeps going on is devastating. Mind disappeared years ago. She hasn’t a clue who I am or anyone else in the family. It is so upsetting  

I suppose I have to keep paying thousands of pounds a month for her care.  Gosh that money could really help our children.

Soooo sad  

 

Edited by Snipper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

Another load of posts lazily assuming overpopulation is the only problem. 50% of the worlds CO2 emissions come from the richest 10%... and 10% of the worlds CO2 comes from the poorest 50%.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/worlds-richest-10-produce-half-of-global-carbon-emissions-says-oxfam

Lets face it, the rich need to change their lifestyles, that would make the biggest differences to global CO2 emissions but that seems to be overlooked by the right wing.

No surprise what newspaper you read to decipher that 'fact'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another thing, its the cumulative effect, once you have 10 kids and bring them up to pump out another 10 each, its game over, remember - we breath in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, 21% of the atmosphere is oxygen, it only has to fall to 19% for the earth to become uninhabitable, if this continues, population explosion will be a problem long after we have solved the fossil fuel problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, feb1991blizzard said:

No surprise what newspaper you read to decipher that 'fact'

I didn't realise Oxfam was a newspaper? Besides stats and figues from scientific research is better then anything you are using for this argument.

Just now, feb1991blizzard said:

And another thing, its the cumulative effect, once you have 10 kids and bring them up to pump out another 10 each, its game over, remember - we breath in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide, 21% of the atmosphere is oxygen, it only has to fall to 19% for the earth to become uninhabitable, if this continues, population explosion will be a problem long after we have solved the fossil fuel problems.

Oh dear... have you ever wondered how many humans it would take to run out of oxygen? It would take at least two trillion people for us to use it all up.

As far as carbon dioxide goes this video sums up why your assumption the breathing from humans is such an inaccurate statement. We are just recycling the CO2 by breathing, its a bit different from getting tonnes of tonnes of CO2 and emitting it into the atmosphere.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Quicksilver1989 said:

I didn't realise Oxfam was a newspaper? Besides stats and figues from scientific research is better then anything you are using for this argument.

Oh dear... have you ever wondered how many humans it would take to run out of oxygen? It would take at least two trillion people for us to use it all up.

As far as carbon dioxide goes this video sums up why your assumption the breathing from humans is such an inaccurate statement. We are just recycling the CO2 by breathing, its a bit different from getting tonnes of tonnes of CO2 and emitting it into the atmosphere.

 

Rubbish - more people - less trees, so less oxygen, plus you dont have to use it all up - a small percentage decrease makes earth uninhabitable - fact - i think what you are saying along with the rest of your brigade is - its ok if no earth in 1000 years as long as it isn't in the next 150 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...